There are various types of cartilage, e.g., hyaline cartilage and fibrocartilage. Hyaline cartilage is found at the articular surfaces of bones, e.g., in the joints, and is responsible for providing the smooth gliding motion characteristic of moveable joints. Articular cartilage is firmly attached to the underlying bones and measures typically less than 5 mm in thickness in human joints, with considerable variation depending on the joint and more particularly the site within the joint. In addition, articular cartilage is aneural, avascular, and alymphatic
Adult cartilage has a limited ability of repair; thus, damage to cartilage produced by disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis and/or osteoarthritis, or trauma can lead to serious physical deformity and debilitation. Furthermore, as human articular cartilage ages, its tensile properties change. Thus, the tensile stiffness and strength of adult cartilage decreases markedly over time as a result of the aging process.
For example, the superficial zone of the knee articular cartilage exhibits an increase in tensile strength up to the third decade of life, after which it decreases markedly with age as detectable damage to type II collagen occurs at the articular surface. The deep zone cartilage also exhibits a progressive decrease in tensile strength with increasing age, although collagen content does not appear to decrease. These observations indicate that there are changes in mechanical and, hence, structural organization of cartilage with aging that, if sufficiently developed, can predispose cartilage to traumatic damage.
Once damage occurs, joint repair can be addressed through a number of approaches. The use of matrices, tissue scaffolds or other carriers implanted with cells (e.g., chondrocytes, chondrocyte progenitors, stromal cells, mesenchymal stem cells, etc.) has been described as a potential treatment for cartilage and meniscal repair or replacement. See, also, International Publications WO 99/51719 to Fofonoff, published Oct. 14, 1999; WO01/91672 to Simon et al., published Dec. 6, 2001; and WO01/17463 to Mannsmann, published Mar. 15, 2001; U.S. Pat. No. 6,283,980 B1 to Vibe-Hansen et al., issued Sep. 4, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,477 to Naughton issued Dec. 1, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 5,769,899 to Schwartz et al. issued Jun. 23, 1998, U.S. Pat. No. 4,609,551 to Caplan et al. issued Sep. 2, 1986, U.S. Pat. No. 5,041,138 to Vacanti et al. issued Aug. 29, 1991, U.S. Pat. No. 5,197,985 to Caplan et al. issued Mar. 30, 1993, U.S. Pat. No. 5,226,914 to Caplan et al. issued Jul. 13, 1993, U.S. Pat. No. 6,328,765 to Hardwick et al. issued Dec. 11, 2001, U.S. Pat. No. 6,281,195 to Rueger et al. issued Aug. 28, 2001, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,846,835 to Grande issued Jul. 11, 1989. However, clinical outcomes with biologic replacement materials such as allograft and autograft systems and tissue scaffolds have been uncertain since most of these materials cannot achieve a morphologic arrangement or structure similar to or identical to that of normal, disease-free human tissue it is intended to replace. Moreover, the mechanical durability of these biologic replacement materials remains uncertain.
Usually, severe damage or loss of cartilage is treated by replacement of the joint with a prosthetic material, for example, silicone, e.g. for cosmetic repairs, or suitable metal alloys. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,443,991 B1 to Running issued Sep. 3, 2002, U.S. Pat. No. 6,387,131 B1 to Miehlke et al. issued May 14, 2002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,383,228 to Schmotzer issued May 7, 2002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,344,059 B1 to Krakovits et al. issued Feb. 5, 1002; U.S. Pat. No. 6,203,576 to Afriat et al. issued Mar. 20, 2001; U.S. Pat. No. 6,126,690 to Ateshian et al. issued Oct. 3, 2000; U.S. Pat. No. 6,013,103 to Kaufman et al. issued Jan. 11, 2000. Implantation of these prosthetic devices is usually associated with loss of underlying tissue and bone without recovery of the full function allowed by the original cartilage and, with some devices, serious long-term complications associated with the loss of significant amounts of tissue and bone can include infection, osteolysis and also loosening of the implant.
As can be appreciated, joint arthroplasties are highly invasive and require surgical resection of the entire, or a majority of the, articular surface of one or more bones involved in the repair. Typically with these procedures, the marrow space is fairly extensively reamed in order to fit the stem of the prosthesis within the bone. Reaming results in a loss of the patient's bone stock and over time subsequent osteolysis will frequently lead to loosening of the prosthesis. Further, the area where the implant and the bone mate degrades over time requiring the prosthesis to eventually be replaced. Since the patient's bone stock is limited, the number of possible replacement surgeries is also limited for joint arthroplasty. In short, over the course of 15 to 20 years, and in some cases even shorter time periods, the patient can run out of therapeutic options ultimately resulting in a painful, non-functional joint.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,206,927 to Fell, et al., issued Mar. 27, 2001, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,558,421 to Fell, et al., issued May 6, 2003, disclose a surgically implantable knee prosthesis that does not require bone resection. This prosthesis is described as substantially elliptical in shape with one or more straight edges. Accordingly, these devices are not designed to substantially conform to the actual shape (contour) of the remaining cartilage in vivo and/or the underlying bone. Thus, integration of the implant can be extremely difficult due to differences in thickness and curvature between the patient's surrounding cartilage and/or the underlying subchondral bone and the prosthesis.
Interpositional knee devices that are not attached to both the tibia and femur have been described. For example, Platt et al. (1969) “Mould Arthroplasty of the Knee,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 51B(1):76-87, describes a hemi-arthroplasty with a convex undersurface that was not rigidly attached to the tibia.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,502,161 to Wall issued Mar. 5, 1985, describes a prosthetic meniscus constructed from materials such as silicone rubber or Teflon with reinforcing materials of stainless steel or nylon strands. U.S. Pat. No. 4,085,466 to Goodfellow et al. issued Mar. 25, 1978, describes a meniscal component made from plastic materials. Reconstruction of meniscal lesions has also been attempted with carbon-fiber-polyurethane-poly (L-lactide). Leeslag, et al., Biological and Biomechanical Performance of Biomaterials (Christel et al., eds.) Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. 1986. pp. 347-352. Reconstruction of meniscal lesions is also possible with bioresorbable materials and tissue scaffolds.
However, currently available devices do not always provide ideal alignment with the articular surfaces and the resultant joint congruity. Poor alignment and poor joint congruity can, for example, lead to instability of the joint. In the knee joint, instability typically manifests as a lateral instability of the joint.
Thus, there remains a need for methods that recreate natural or near natural relationships between two articular surfaces of the joint (such as the femoral condyle and the tibial plateau).